The other thread discussing the Reds as a potential trade partner with SD for Greene has me puzzled. His OBP is so poor. If the interest is in his defense, why not just give Janish the job and save the money and the prospects for other deals? I've read the thinking that his power numbers would increase in GABP. But do we really want another out machine who hits 20 home runs in the lineup? Are there not better options?

Can someone convince me Greene would be a good addition?

11-04-2008, 08:41 AM

kpresidente

Re: Greene? Really?

It's like signing Corey Patterson because of his defense. Actually, Greene doesn't even play great defense. I absolutely hate it. I'd rather just go with Keppinger at SS. 50-75 points of OBP is not worth 30 outs in the field.

OBP is also the reason I'm not big on Beltre. Is he a $10 million + prospects upgrade over EE if he saves you 50 hits but gets on base 25 fewer times?

11-04-2008, 08:50 AM

UPRedsFan

Re: Greene? Really?

Good analogy on Patterson. Maybe not quite as bad as Corey offensively, but you're right it's close.

11-04-2008, 09:36 AM

kpresidente

Re: Greene? Really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPRedsFan

Good analogy on Patterson. Maybe not quite as bad as Corey offensively, but you're right it's close.

3-Year OBP | SLG
Greene - .291 | .427
Patterson - .289 | .395

...but Patterson will swipe some bases so I think it's a push.

The difference is Patterson actually does give you good defense, and Greene isn't even league-average. If they get Greene, the fans will be ranting about it mid-season just like we were with Patterson. These are exactly the kinds of moves that kill us.

Here's another way to look at it...

WIN SHARES ABOVE BENCH

Gonzo (2007) = 2
Keppinger = 0
Greene = -4

Encarnacion = 3
Beltre = 3
Atkins = 0

So Greene is a downgrade from Keppinger, and Beltre vs. Encarnacion is a push, with Atkins as a downgrade. Yeah, let's go trade the farm and run up the payroll 20-25 million for those guys!

11-04-2008, 10:09 AM

redsfandan

Re: Greene? Really?

nice post kpresidente. i wouldn't have expected those #'s for those 3rd basemen. makes EE look a little better.

11-04-2008, 10:25 AM

kpresidente

Re: Greene? Really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsfandan

nice post kpresidente. i wouldn't have expected those #'s for those 3rd basemen. makes EE look a little better.

That's not defenseive win shares, in case you read it as such. It's WSAB, which measures offense and defense combined.

Atkins had a 3.1 in 2008, but split his innings between 1B and 3B, so his 2007 number is more idicative. It's also in-line with his career #s at 3B. He's on the same level of suckitude as EE. Also, Gonzo's fielding #s were a career low. He's normally around 6-7. His age could account for some of that drop, but not all, I think. I still believe he's unquestionably better than Greene/Keppinger in the field.

11-04-2008, 10:50 AM

redsfandan

Re: Greene? Really?

add in how much greene will make in '09 and it's hard for me to be interested. i'd prefer everett or eckstein as a cheap backup for '09 and look for a top ss prospect.

EE looks like a nice value compared to the other two though. i'd also be less surprised by an improvement by EE than by beltre/atkins. maybe beltre will produce in a contract year. who knows. i just hope EE's throws improve. iirc, he did better with risp before last year so i wouldn't be surprised if that improved some too.

11-04-2008, 11:45 AM

Mitri

Re: Greene? Really?

Greene is a younger version of Gonzalez with more pop and upside. I think he'd be a slight improvement over the in-house options (not including a Phillips to SS move) both offensively and defensively as it is, and could be a candidate for a nice bounce-back season.

I believe it's Greene's .468 slugging in '07 that is intriguing. That in cavernous San Diego (12 HR's at home that year) is pretty impressive for a little guy like Greene. He has pop, and it is pop that actually translates into SLG, unlike Patterson. Sure, he's OB% deprived and not a total whiz in the field, but could be an improvement over Gonzalez or Janish, and could see a bump in GAB and a change-of-scenery scenario.

I'd be interested in Greene only if the only options the Reds have are Janish and Gonzalez and the price is right.

Edit: he's owed 6.5 Mill in '09 and seems to be on poor terms with SD, so I don't think it'd take much. A potential Gonzalez/Greene swap could be done if the Reds threw in a prospect.

11-04-2008, 12:53 PM

757690

Re: Greene? Really?

Greene would be a solid upgrade for the Reds at short, if he is healthy, and that is the key. He had a terrible 08, but many players have one bad year, and then recover and have a solid career.

As Mitri pointed out, he plays in one of the worst hitters parks in the majors. His road numbers, including the terrible 08 are:

.270 .318 .484 .802

In GABP, he should come close to those numbers if healthy.

That is a huge improvement over Gonzalez career overall #'s

.248 .295 .399 .695

Defensively, he would be solid, but not great at SS. He would be much better than Keppinger, and probably as good as Gonzalez, if he is healthy. Greene was rated as a +7 in 2007 Fileding Bible which put him in the top 10 in the majors. The key is that he is a solid everyday SS with years of experience there, which is what the Reds need. A stable defensive SS.

His salary is definitely too high, but that just means that he should be available for very little in return.

He's not my first choice, but he is definitely on my short list of SS candidates for the Reds next year.

11-04-2008, 01:36 PM

Keystone12

Re: Greene? Really?

I'd rather have Willie Greene.

11-04-2008, 02:14 PM

nemesis

Re: Greene? Really?

He could probaly be had for Richar or Valakia and Roenicke. They would need a SS to replace him and Richar can play it. He would add speed to the top of their lineup. I truly belive Valakia has little or no future with this team. He need to be switched to second and we already have 2 similar options at that postion in Turner and Frazier. I also think Roenicke would fair much better IMO as a flyball pitcher in Petco vs. GABP and being from SoCal he'd probaly welcome the trade.

I think it's worth a one year gamble. If he hits .275 20 70 .770 he'd be worth every penny. How many people in here would laughed you off the board if you told them that Barlett woulda been the piece that put TB in the WS?

We tend to forget that sometimes there is so much more to baseball than raw numbers. I say go for it.

11-04-2008, 03:35 PM

bgwilly31

Re: Greene? Really?

I heard this on wlw today.

The guy had a god awful season at the plate last year.

His defense is good But not GREAT.

OBP sucks.

IMO keep kepp and jarnish over that.

11-04-2008, 04:03 PM

Phillips Head

Re: Greene? Really?

Alright, well since I am the only credible source on Greene seeing as how I'm the only one who watches Greene on a daily basis (I live in San Diego), it's not his glove, but his bat is the reason I wouldn't want Greene. When healthy, he could conceivably hit 30 HRs at GABP, but EVERYONE is wrong about his glove. As much as I don't really care for Greene, he has an OUTSTANDING glove. Watch film of him and you will be impressed. He has excellent range and makes several highlight reel plays that go unnoticed simply because he's not flashy like Phillips, and because he plays for the Padres.
So dismiss the notion that he has a bad glove, because that is completely false. He does not get on base consistently enough for an everyday hitter. If we are really looking to shore up our middle defense, then Greene is a pretty good option, but only if we're willing to sacrifice a .230 hitter for a above average glove at short.

11-04-2008, 04:14 PM

Mitri

Re: Greene? Really?

Sounds about right. Solid glove, low OBP but plenty of pop. You could see both is slugging and on-base skills improve in the NL Central. Could actually complement a guy like Hanigan (gets on base more, less slugging oriented) at the bottom of the lineup.